Originally Posted by Polaris OBark

Before hearing about this, I thought those benefits were well-established. But if new evidence emerges to the contrary, I will have to alter my opinion. If it turns out it that the newly reported analysis is a mistake, or a red herring, or bad statistic or whatever, then I will default back to the original position that IM is purely beneficial.

I've never tried IM fasting, but I have pretty much assumed the benefits greatly outweighed any potential risk. This newly reported preliminary finding is something I currently regard more as a heads-up. If it stands up to peer-review and its findings can be replicated, I'll regard it as a refutation of the assumption that IM is purely beneficial.

I don't have any personal stake in this. If IM is a way of reversing typeII diabetes and lowers cardiac risk as a consequence, I think it should be more widely promoted. I would really like for that to be the case, but if evidence to the contrary emerges, we can't just ignore it because it is "bad news."

Looping back to the quoted question, the answer is that (scientific) knowledge progresses, and sometimes that involves abandoning previous assumptions. The same logic applies to the following trivial example: I have a hypothesis that all swans are white. I observe 49 white swans, and conclude my hypothesis is correct. But I walk a mile upstream, and encounter one black swan. That is 49 observations of white swans vs. one observation of a black swan. Can I still conclude that all swans are white?